State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Kuldeep Chand Kapoor & Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7299/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12768/1999)
With
Civil Appeal No. 7300/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14767/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12768/1999)
With
Civil Appeal No. 7300/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14767/1999)
Petitioner: State of U.P. & Ors.
Respondent: Kuldeep Chand Kapoor & Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7299/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12768/1999)
With
Civil Appeal No. 7300/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14767/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12768/1999)
With
Civil Appeal No. 7300/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14767/1999)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 18, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
U.P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers’ Service Rules, 1990
Rule 6 – Promotion – Head of Department of composing – Appointment held to be illegal in view of PGI Chandigarh’s case – Questions whether this post is isolated post or not, not determined – Also observation that service rules do not provide for reservation, found to be erroneous. Held that orders are set aside and matter remitted for fresh decision after giving opportunity. (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and Others (JT 1998 (3) SC 223)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 17.5.1999. Respondent Chandra Deo Ram having been promoted as head of the department of composing applying the principles of reservation and roster, the writ petition was filed by one Kuldeep Chand Kapoor. It was alleged in the writ petition that the appointment of said Chandra Deo Ram on promotion as head of the department of composing is contrary to rules and is illegal. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the post of head of the department of composing is a single post in a cadre and as such the principle of reservation could not have been applied in view of the Constitution bench decision of this Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and Others (JT 1998 (3) SC 223). The High Court having allowed the writ petition, and having quashed the promotion of Chandra Deo Ram, the State of U.P. as well as Chandra Deo Ram are in two appeals before us.
3. It is contended by Mr. Yadav appearing for Chandra Deo Ram and Mr. Singh appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh that the conclusion that the head of the department is a single post is erroneous, as would appear from the provisions contained in U.P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers’ Service Rules, 1990 and the appendix thereto. According to Mr. Yadav, category 9 consists of head of the department in the institution and the number of posts are three. Mr. Agarwal appearing for Mr. Kuldeep Chand Kapoor, however, contends that the head of the department of the three different disciplines must be from the very discipline where the concerned employee was working in the feeder category. According to him, composing, graphic reproduction and lithography, and letter press are three distinct separate disciplines, and therefore head of the department of each of the discipline must be held to be a single cadre, and High Court could not be said to have committed error in coming that conclusion and then setting aside the promotion of Chandra Deo Ram applying the ratio of the judgment of this Court in postgraduate institute. We find that the High Court committed an error by recording a finding that the service rules do not provide for reservation on the post of head of the department, and the government order dated 10.10.1994 cannot give any benefit to a reserved candidate, in view of the rule 6 of the U.P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers’ Service Rules, 1990. Since the question whether the particular post is an isolated post, as contended by the general category candidate, or not an isolated post, as contended by Mr. Yadav appearing for the reserved category candidate, as also by the State of U.P., is yet to be determined and since the High Court also committed an error in holding that there is no provision in the rules providing for reservation, we think it appropriate to quash the impugned order and remit the writ petition for re-disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The impugned judgment of Allahabad High Court accordingly is set aside and the writ petition no. 36146/1998 is remitted to the High Court for re-disposal. These two appeals are disposed of accordingly.
4. We make it clear that since Shri Kuldeep Chand Kapoor has been continuing as a head of the department pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, he shall be allowed to continue until the High Court finally disposes of the writ petition. The High Court is requested to take up the hearing of the writ petition early and learned chief justice of Allahabad High Court is requested to place the matter before an appropriate division bench so that the matter could be disposed of within three months from today.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 17.5.1999. Respondent Chandra Deo Ram having been promoted as head of the department of composing applying the principles of reservation and roster, the writ petition was filed by one Kuldeep Chand Kapoor. It was alleged in the writ petition that the appointment of said Chandra Deo Ram on promotion as head of the department of composing is contrary to rules and is illegal. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the post of head of the department of composing is a single post in a cadre and as such the principle of reservation could not have been applied in view of the Constitution bench decision of this Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and Others (JT 1998 (3) SC 223). The High Court having allowed the writ petition, and having quashed the promotion of Chandra Deo Ram, the State of U.P. as well as Chandra Deo Ram are in two appeals before us.
3. It is contended by Mr. Yadav appearing for Chandra Deo Ram and Mr. Singh appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh that the conclusion that the head of the department is a single post is erroneous, as would appear from the provisions contained in U.P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers’ Service Rules, 1990 and the appendix thereto. According to Mr. Yadav, category 9 consists of head of the department in the institution and the number of posts are three. Mr. Agarwal appearing for Mr. Kuldeep Chand Kapoor, however, contends that the head of the department of the three different disciplines must be from the very discipline where the concerned employee was working in the feeder category. According to him, composing, graphic reproduction and lithography, and letter press are three distinct separate disciplines, and therefore head of the department of each of the discipline must be held to be a single cadre, and High Court could not be said to have committed error in coming that conclusion and then setting aside the promotion of Chandra Deo Ram applying the ratio of the judgment of this Court in postgraduate institute. We find that the High Court committed an error by recording a finding that the service rules do not provide for reservation on the post of head of the department, and the government order dated 10.10.1994 cannot give any benefit to a reserved candidate, in view of the rule 6 of the U.P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers’ Service Rules, 1990. Since the question whether the particular post is an isolated post, as contended by the general category candidate, or not an isolated post, as contended by Mr. Yadav appearing for the reserved category candidate, as also by the State of U.P., is yet to be determined and since the High Court also committed an error in holding that there is no provision in the rules providing for reservation, we think it appropriate to quash the impugned order and remit the writ petition for re-disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The impugned judgment of Allahabad High Court accordingly is set aside and the writ petition no. 36146/1998 is remitted to the High Court for re-disposal. These two appeals are disposed of accordingly.
4. We make it clear that since Shri Kuldeep Chand Kapoor has been continuing as a head of the department pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, he shall be allowed to continue until the High Court finally disposes of the writ petition. The High Court is requested to take up the hearing of the writ petition early and learned chief justice of Allahabad High Court is requested to place the matter before an appropriate division bench so that the matter could be disposed of within three months from today.
